News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Relevant:
Under those circumstances, I don't blame the homeowner for using a gun to defend himself and the other female resident. This guy was literally breaking into their home. If it had been me, I would have been terrified and very thankful to have a gun on hand for defense. I'm sure a lot of people here will protest to the shooting, but I would urge them to really think about what they would have done in such a situation. I don't know what Donofrio's reasons were for trying to break into the home, but they hardly matter; the fact is, he did try, and the residents of the home had every reason to think they were in danger. If we had multi-shot stun guns that could reliably incapacitate an intruder, I'd say he should have used that rather than a lethal weapon, but current stun guns aren't that reliable and only fire once before needing to be reloaded. That a life was lost is sad, but I agree that no criminal charges should be filed in this instance. However, I'm not saying that I entirely agree with the Castle doctrine on which this is based, as I'm not intimately familiar with it, but the general notion of being able to use lethal force to defend oneself against a home intruder I do agree with on principle.
I do not agree with the castle doctrine. It's too easily used to justify lethal force when retreat is an option, however self-defense is a valid justification and from the description given I think that's completely plausible. An unknown person breaking the glass and potentially armed could be a threat. It sucks that a guy who possibly did nothing wrong has to defend himself in an investigation, but we should have a high bar on lethal actions for civilians and cops (the standard should be higher for cops).
I actually don't hate castle doctrine tbh, which is commonly confused with the more controversial "stand your ground." I frankly do not see "a duty to retreat" from one's own occupied dwelling in the event of an intruder, in my opinion that duty dissipates the second forcible entry has been made to my home.
The common thing I hear is "they usually just want your TV," but A) The best way to steal a TV is to push a cart, trust me, especially if you still have a 24hr walmart, and B) if you have to rob people of their TV who are also probably living paycheck to paycheck, at least have the common decency to not do so while they're home and scare the shit out of them. For all they know you could be a rapist or a murderer even if just out of opportunity or "no witnesses," even by accident with poor gun safety from robbers. Tbh it's hard for me to agree that some poor family should have to flee their own home or hide in a closet if someone else decides to enter it unlawfully.
I said "option" to retreat not "duty" which is an important distinction I think. And there's also the option of other reasonable force. I don't think killing to protect my TV is reasonable, but fighting back possibly even causing injury might be. If I lived in a place where the intruder wasn't likely to be armed, I'd probably whack his hand with broom handle, and I wouldn't even feel bad if I broke his wrist because some use of force to keep a stranger from entering my house is warranted. When it comes to lethal force though the standard should be higher, which is why I prefer the self-defense/defense of others test. Did the guy have good reason to think the person breaking in was an imminent danger, that he might be armed and therefore escalation to firing a gun was reasonable? I don't pretend to know, but I think that's the test that should be used. That test should take into account that it was his house being broken in to, and that there was another person present he might have wanted to protect, because that definitely affects your perception of danger. We don't need a set of principles that say you automatically get a pass when it's your house, I think it's better to look at each case individually.
Right, but the castle doctrine specifically is a set of principles which when incorporated into the laws lessens the "duty" to retreat inside one's own home, which is why I said "duty." Castle doctrine then actually gives one the "option" because while you'd have no "duty to retreat," you still "could if you wanted," while with the inverse the "option" to "not retreat" is taken from you.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that if they break into my house while I'm in it, they're at least willing to harm me to accomplish whatever goal they had and the goal becomes inconsequential, and therefore it is reasonable to defend myself to the fullest extent necessary. In the time it takes to play the "Hello sir yes it's dark and 3am and you just woke me up but do you have a weapon of any kind or are we about to engage in a bout of fisticuffs" game I could be stabbed, I'm not taking that chance frankly.
And you're welcome to so, but I personally would rather not incur undue risk, I'd rather have the option to defend the safest-for-me way I can, which happens to be a firearm. With castle doctrine we're both happy, you can broom-whack and I can stay safe, options.
That's what I mean, imo if you've entered my occupied dwelling "for the TV bro I promise," me responding with deadly force is self defense. It isn't about the tv, contrary to what he or detractors of castle doctrine will tell you, it's about the fact that if he couldn't wait until I get to work or just steal one from walmart he's clearly willing to do me harm, he could very well be armed, and we're in a private secluded location where nobody could hear me scream, yeah "so anyway I started blasting."
I think that set of principles is right, someone breaking into your house while you're inside it is a bigger threat than it's naysayers would have you believe.
That's a valid statement.
It also demonstrates a wider problem: gun proliferation is so incredibly high that the default assumption is always going to be "that person might have a gun," and this will always prompt a much lowered threshold to use one's own gun in return.
It doesn't really matter if they have a gun or not from the perspective of someone who's home is being broken into. Any physical violence is dangerous and can result in death. People breaking into homes aren't getting shot because they "might have a gun". They're getting shot because it's unreasonable to expect a victim to accept any further risk by trying to talk the aggressor down or subdue them some other way once they've broken in.
Exactly this. I am from Central Europe and if someone tried to break into my home, I wouldnt assume by ~~Renault~~ default that they have a weapon. Because burglars here aren't armed.
Do Renaults often figure into your thinking? ;)
Oh shit
And are your rapists armed?
According to most stories in the newspapers, no.
Then an unarmed intruder can still be a serious threat.
No disagreement. I'm a commie pinko by American standards, which is to say slightly left by European standards. I support gun regulation but it won't solve the proliferation until we face up to this weird fetishization of guns we have.
You know that guns aren't the only way to hurt people, right? People can be killed quite easily
No, I did not know that.
That's amazing.
I can’t tell, did they announce at all or just fired the moment he broke the window??
Surely this could have been avoided by asking questions first…. What the fuck
Idk man, I'm liberal as hell and even I have problems with that line of logic. Man's smashing up their house, putting myself in the invadees shoes I'd be worried about warning the home invader(s) and making them use their weapons.
I'm not saying I think everything is fine and dandy in this situation, mfs are using guns way to much in America. But since the occupants had a gun for self defense AND their home was being broken into, I find it hard to blame them for defending themselves.
Same, progressive who believes people have the right to defend their house once someone is clearly trying to force their way in.
I'm uncomfortable with that loophole only because of you'll recall, several years back a black lady knocked on a stranger's for because her car broke down in front of that house and got ventilated without discussion.
That's wack as shit, and I have to wonder how police would determine a frame-up if that particular trashbag had broken the window to make it seem like the lady was breaking in.
Only solution that comes to mind is a ring-like device which only records to local storage.
Absolutely, I think there should be certain objective things that have to happen before "fearing for your life" is a valid defence.
Someone breaking your window after trying to enter forcefully through your door is where I start thinking it's okay to use a deadly weapon to defend yourself.
Someone knocking on your door (regardless of the time of day) is not a reasonable situation to fear for your life, at least to the extent where you attack the person.
I don't know the specific case you're talking about, but that isn't actually the law, that is a failure of our justice system, the shooter could have gotten convicted for that (based off your description I should add, if I'm missing details that would exhonerate the homeowner, like an outside gate already having been breached, then that's another matter). In my area, you are required to have signs of forced entry before you can defend yourself in this manner, and if someone shot through the door my DA would certainly try the case, but then the jury can decide if "guilty or not guilty," and that's how you end up with both false convictions and "false releases" like the one you mentioned. Unfortunately however I'm unaware of a more fair system than the one we have, but I'm open to ideas.
I mean I'm not in the camp of thinking the homeowners were necessarily in the wrong, but have you seriously never heard of someone breaking their own window to get back into their own property when they were locked out? Also, yea it is possible to communicate with a blackout drunk person, or at least try to warn them.
I dont know the whole situation, but if they didn't make any effort to communicate or warn the guy before they shot him, I do think that's cold hearted. If they did try to communicate and were ignored, then I think they didn't do anything wrong.
Legally speaking they are obviously in the clear. I just dont know if this was acceptable from a moral perspective to me without knowing the full details yet.
I'm upvoting you simply because I think you're debating in good faith and even though I don't agree with you, I think you're adding something real to the conversation.
While I do think the situation would likely have ended better if the homeowner had tried to engage the invader in reasonable conversation before pulling the trigger, I don't think he should be legally required to do so. Remember: it was the home invader's actions that caused this whole situation. People keep winging about the homeowner's responsibility to take action to *protect *the invader of his home, but no one is acknowledging that the invader could have prevented all of this by simply not invading the home. People who behave this way have problems, but they're virtually always not the people they are harming with their actions. They need help, surely, but they also need to be isolated from the general population and punished for the harm they do to others.
And for those who chime in to object to the fact that I said people should be punished for their crimes, just know that I'm all for prison reforms that make prisons safer and help people begin new lives after they've served their time, but that I ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DEMAND they serve their fucking time. I have no use for people that can't wrap their pathetic brains around the notion that crime and punishment are inextricably linked. It's not about vengeance. The entire reason we have a justice system is so that we can punish criminals in a more objective, humane way than victims can with their tendency towards revenge rather than justice.
I completely agree with you that there should be no legal requirement to warn an intruder before utilizing self defense. I just feel that its nuanced, and in this particular case, if I was the homeowner I would be screaming my head off warning the intruder that they are about to die in not such a polite way. I just would feel morally obligated to do everything I could to divert the situation, and I would hope most others would do the same before making the decision to end a life.
Could have been avoided? Maybe. But at some point the onus is on the person breaking into your house to...idk, not do that? Like there's a spectrum between what you can do, what you should do and what you have to do and asking some questions first is certainly something you can do. Maybe even something you should do, but protecting your family from someone who is breaking into your house is something you have to do. This isn't Ralph Yarl who got popped twice for standing on the porch, or those girls who were still in the car and backing out of someone's driveway when they got clipped. Dude tried to break into the house by kicking the door in, that didn't work, so he tried a different way of breaking into the house which would have worked had he been left to it.
I'm usually pretty firmly against preemptive violence as self defense but this seems rather cut and dry to me. I would have done the exact same thing the homeowner did here, and I think that it's doubly good that the homeowner wasn't charged.
Wow you're telling me the tidal wave of liberal shitposting on Reddit was wrong about this and they should have waited for the actual facts? I don't believe it!!
I agree with you, I do. It should be legal to protect your property. The problem is when you have a gun, everything looks like a shooting. If you didn't have a gun, how would you handle the situation? You could leave. You could lock yourself in an interior room and wait for the cops. You could fight them Kevin style. All of those options, at the end of the day, would give you a better chance of not killing somebody.
It's not about protection of property to me. I don't care about that. I care about people having the right to use all reasonable options for defending themselves against violent attackers. And to your point, might this person's death have been avoided if the occupants of the home had fled or hid somewhere? Certainly. But should they be legally required to do so? No, not in my opinion. Reason being, I don't think the impetus should be on victims to take their attackers' well-being into account when it's the attackers that are creating the problem in the first place. Telling a person who is scared for their life that they need to fight the impulse coming from their amygdala to fight back against a violent attacker is totally unreasonable. If a person is coming at me with their fists and I have a gun, I don't think I should have to refrain from firing my weapon and take the hits my attacker is throwing, just to make sure he doesn't die. What if I die? What if I lose an eye or get my face scarred up? What if he takes my gun and shoots me? No. No, fuck that, if someone is attacking me, they've given me permission to defend myself in whatever way seems reasonable to me, and I'm not risking my own life or even just serious injury because someone else has anger management problems. They're the problem; they're the threat to society; if they die, yeah that sucks, but it's their fucking fault, not mine for defending myself against their violent behavior.
I'm so sick of people having all this empathy for violent criminals, and way too little for their victims. You want to tell other people to react in a calm, collected, pacifist manner when they're being attacked, to risk their own lives and wellbeing for the sake of their attacker's? Tell you what, you get yourself attacked somehow when you're not expecting it and demonstrate how cool, calm, and pacifist you are under fire; you show the rest of us how easy that is. You do that, and maybe I'll consider what you have to say, but until then, you're just a hand-wringing, pearl-clutching bystander who has their priorities messed up and doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
That's fine but where's the line. If someone pulls up in your driveway, is it OK to shoot them? If they knock on your door? What if you have an argument and they throw popcorn at you? The last one was deemed reasonable in Florida. If you have a legitimate conflict with someone, is it just a matter of who kills who first? If someone breaks into your home, this case, he broke the glass and was trying to open the door. Can you shoot them? Do you need to warn them first? What if they were just outside walking around creepily. Is it OK to kill them? Can i provoke someone then when thry come at me, can i kill them? Where's the line? This is a real question because right now the rules don't make sense.
Violence is the line.
Does that include popcorn?
Of course not.
That's good to hear. Unfortunately, the courts make the issue confusing.
Those other options also put you at a greater potential for being harmed yourself. Your goal should always be to not get harmed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm53BnikXTI
The guy at the door was not an immediate threat to life or limb, save his own. Firing a gun was not justified without threat, IMO. But I guess in the USA you can murder people to save your property (not your life).
How much more "immediate" do you need? A complete stranger is trying to break into your home to do god knows what is the epitome of a clear and immediate danger to me.
What would you have done? Opened the door and welcomed them in?
So declare your firearm and say fuck off or I will shoot, don’t just shoot. As a gun owner myself I would NEVER fire without trying to give verbal commands. I couldn’t see anywhere in the article any reference to discussion between the door window breaking and firing.
What the hell??
Easy enough to say when you're not in that situation with your nerves running high.
Opening the door may have saved everyone in this case.
Did they try to communicate with the person? Look through the widow to see whether the person is armed? Flee? Get a non lethal weapon like a bat, knife, pepper spray? Hide? There was time for the home owner to go get a gun before the window broke. I assume, since this is USA, that it was already loaded (😂) so I'm sure it didn't take too long, but did they try ANY of those things? Unlikely, and that's unfortunate.
You ever use a bat or knife to kill a person? Way harder than squeezing a trigger, friend.
Which is why if you attack someone with those (and don't kill them, if you do it's just murder) you get charged with assault with a deadly weapon, friend? See how that plays out for you in court.
Though you are right even if you were far off base from my point, it is easier to defend yourself with a gun than a bat or a knife.
Again, you're wrong. It's easier to kill people with a gun than a bat or a knife. My point is that this case shouldn't be a situation calling for the castle doctrine (based on the text) because other avenues for dealing with the situation existed and were possible. In that case, I'd rather be charged with assault than murder.
No, read it again, I believe you'll find I did acknowledge that you were right, a gun is more effective than melee weapons if you have to defend yourself.
Strange interpretation of castle doctrine, mind sharing the relevant portion that would preclude this man from self defense? The whole thing about castle doctrine is exactly to shut people who say "you should have waited until he put the knife in your throat, then shoot him," like yourself, up. When someone breaks in, breaking a window, to gain unauthorized entry to your house, their reason for doing so is frankly irrelelvant, it is reasonable to defend yourself to your fullest ability and not put yourself in further danger to protect the invader. If you want to take the chance that it's a drunk kid not looking for violence, take it, but don't force others to incur undue risk, teach drunk college kids not to break and enter. He shouldn't be charged with either for defending his home.
And in my example of attacking people with them being still murder if you kill them and assault with a deadly weapon if you don't applies to all three weapons, gun, knife, and bat. That's what I'm saying, the law does not differentiate based on weapon used, they differentiate based on reasonable standards of force, and you can only use all three of those if the standard for deadly force has been reached. If not, you will be in trouble for escalating it using any one of those three weapons. Fortunately for you however, if someone did break in, you'd meet that standard, so you can kill them with any of the three.